Petition Against Ron Paul's Inclusion in Future Republican Presidential Debates

Petition Spot.com ^ | 16 May 2007 | Lee

[jwalsh07]

So we include the other GOP candidates who are not presently included as well too? Anyone who shows up is the rule?

Not my rules, I'm not sponsoring the debate but I can think of 20 conservaitves I'd prefer than the so called "top tier". I'm also not signing your petition. Such is life.

[Xenalyte]

You are mistaking an explanation, which Dr. Paul gave, for a justification, which he did not.

[philman_36]

Yes he did.
Where?
PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9-11 attack, sir?
PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

And further...During a postdebate interview, Fox News host Sean Hannity asked Paul: "Are you suggesting the United States of America caused the attack on 9-11?" Paul replied: "No, I think that's a cop-out." Hannity then asked: "Are you suggesting that our policies are causing the hatred of people that would cause them to want to kill us?" Paul responded: "I think it contributes significantly to it, and this is exactly what our CIA tells us. Paul later stated explicitly: "[T]he Americans didn't do anything to cause [9-11]."
So, where did he suggest "that the United States is culpable for its own punishment on 9/11 from Al Qaeda"?
Sounds to me like Hannity might have a few moles of his own.

[philman_36]

Tell you what buddy, I won't respond to any more of your posts in this thread, and that will let you crow about 'getting the last word', ok?
Oh, you gonna send me something in mail, like you did the last time when you told me I could have the last word, so you can get the last word in in private? BWAHAHAHAHA!
And in your own words...You sound like you’re just about to slink off mkjessup.

A little less hyperbole next time.

[roger55]

>>You are mistaking an explanation, which Dr. Paul gave, for a justification, which he did not.

Of course he thinks it’s justified. His description of what he believes Al Qaeda’s motives to be and his on policy goals (remove the US from the region) are completely identical. There is no way to argue that they are different, given his own formulation.

To maintain your argument and allege that if Ron believes Al Qaeda is motivated by our Iraq policy to damage us and that by consequence, he wants to comply with that motivation by withdrawing us from influence in Iraq, and yet he does not believe their motivation is justified, is just not credible.

[mkjessup]

Of course he thinks it’s justified. His description of what he believes Al Qaeda’s motives to be and his on policy goals (remove the US from the region) are completely identical. There is no way to argue that they are different, given his own formulation.

Exactly right. Ron Paul is of the view that America's presence in the Middle East is one of the root causes for our (ahem) 'difficulties' with terrorism. That is absolute lunacy. The cause of terrorism begins with radical Islamics seeking to fulfill each and every directive of the Quran, which basically breaks down to "kill the infidels, if they will not convert to Islam".

Ron Paul seems to think it necessary that we examine each and every thing we've ever done in the Middle East to try and determine 'why' the locals don't like us. I say who cares?

There is no popularity contest underway in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world, and I personally would prefer for our Country to be feared and respected, as opposed to being 'liked' because we have a big smiley face on our lapel.

Ron Paul actually tried to make the argument that because the CIA supported the overthrow of Mossadegh in '53, that *that* was the reason the Iranians took our people hostage in '79, I mean he actually stated that and such a belief reveals a vast ignorance, even over and above that of the champion loser, Jimmy STP Carter.

To maintain your argument and allege that if Ron believes Al Qaeda is motivated by our Iraq policy to damage us and that by consequence, he wants to comply with that motivation by withdrawing us from influence in Iraq, and yet he does not believe their motivation is justified, is just not credible.

It comes down to one very easy to understand principle:

Those Islamic SOBs intend to kill us, all of us, down to the last man, woman and child.

Therefore, we should be taking them out first, and by the bushel.

Hey Roger? Is there some sort of distorted graphics or messed up fonts in some of the posts, a kind of visual 'static'?

It must not be anything or anyone important, you think?

[gracesdad]

Always glad to oblige.

I still maintain that eliminating anybody from the debates simply because you don’t agree with their positions is a stupid idea. And dumb. And un-American. But hey, be my guest.

[roger55]

>>>I still maintain that eliminating anybody from the debates simply because you don’t agree with their positions is a stupid idea. And dumb. And un-American. But hey, be my guest.

Maintain it all you like. I’ll invest my own indignation in the fact that excusing the motivations of Al Qaeda is un-American. Comprehensively and utterly un-American.

In my view, to find greater objection in not inviting someone to a television debate, than in forgiving and providing a platform for Paul’s apologies for salafists, is to insult yourself as American.

[SwordofTruth]

>Nope.

He won both debates, get over it sore loser. You sound just like Gore.

[SwordofTruth]

"Just out of curiosity...why do you think bin Laden/Al Queda attacked America?

Do you think he meant what he said in his 1996 fatwa or not?"

Trying to use logic on people who let their emotions rule their thinking won't work. Ron Paul asked what we would do if the Chinese invaded our nation and wouldn't leave even though the majority wanted them too. We all know the answer to that, we would fight them to our last drop of blood.

[roger55]

>>He won both debates, get over it sore loser. You sound just like Gore.

And you sound like a child with such insults. We’ll call it even.

As to winning the debate, I’ll give you a tip on that. The debate winner, is not self-declared by the candidate’s supporters. Not now, not ever.

[SwordofTruth]

And you sound like a child with such insults. We’ll call it even.

No, you are the child ignoring reality just like Al Gore. Ignore it if you must, but you can't forever.

[roger55]

>>No, you are the child ignoring reality just like Al Gore. Ignore it if you must, but you can’t forever.

Well, you need a bit of work with this Sword, if you don’t mind my saying so. See, if I were ignoring your perception of reality I wouldn’t be speaking to you. What you want to say here instead, is that I’m in opposition to reality. That I’m resisting the truth. Excuse me, that I’m “resisting THE TRUTH!!” to write that properly for emphasis in the fanatical Paulist dialect.

As to how long that opposition will last, try permanently. Fortunately for my sake that’s likely to remain majority opinion for quite some time.

[johnthebaptistmoore]

I don’t agree with excluding Ron Paul from any future debates at this time. It’s still early in the ‘08 Presidential race. I just wish that many more voters also knew about John Cox expertise on tax issues and that both Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson would officially make up their minds already about either running for President or not. Most conservatives at this point in time are still undecided about who to support for the ‘08 Presidency.

[roger55]

>>>I don’t agree with excluding Ron Paul from any future debates at this time.

Well, at least you’re open to the idea in future. That’s good enough for me. :-)

John Cox is another splendid example of an excluded candidate, you won’t hear the Paulists cry over anytime soon as a victim of “censorship.” And you right too, his positions on the terrorism and Iraq a heck of a lot more in accord with the Republican party, than this Libertarian gynecologist.

[philman_36]

Trying to use logic on people who let their emotions rule their thinking won't work.
Drama Queens.

[x]

That’s a fairly cynical conclusion. We need their votes and money, so we shouldn’t offend them? Well hell, I can get us an enormous constituency tomorrow by merely claiming that not only was the United States to blame for 9/11, as Paul does, but we actually put explosives in the buildings and blew them up ourselves.

...

If Paul’s views on 9/11 accord with any constituency within the Republican party, that constituency is hopeless out of step with the rest of it. To such an extent that one wonders what they’re doing here.

My point was that historically a large part of the Republican Party hasn't been that keen on foreign wars.

These are people who may not turn up on internet forums but who you and I meet every day.

They'll go along with the wars the country's in, but they don't go looking for conflicts to get into or foreign dragons to slay.

They're not on the terrorists' side, but they are a lot less inclined to get into more wars than some candidates and opinionators apparently are.

These Americans probably don't think much about Ron Paul and if they've heard of him may not think much of him, but if you send the message that any criticism of recent wars is to be banned among Republican Presidential candidates, that gives them an incentive not to vote Republican.

Since Paul can't win the nomination anyway, why go out of your way to anger people who are basically good Americans and Republicans, just because you can't abide what Ron Paul said?